SoD story discussion
Skatan
Member, Moderator Posts: 5,352
Hello all.
I waited a long time before I played SoD and I've waited an even longer time before writing here because I wanted you-know-what to die out first. I would like to discuss the main story and keeping the focus purely on that. There are a plethora of things I truly enjoyed with SoD, the areas being the most beautyfull ever in an IE game for example, but there was certain aspects of the main story I never could understand.
I don't read in-game books, that's just not the person I am. I read books IRL but when I play a game, I want the story to be more straight forward and spoonfed to me. With this said, there might be books in the game that shines some light in the story I haven't read, so have that in mind.
Obviously there will be spoilers in this thread. If you haven't played the game yet you should exit this thread now since I hope anyone who replies will write out parts of it in detail.
OK, so my crude summarization of the main story and the antagonist's purpose is this: Argent amasses an army to go to Dragonspear castle to free the souls of her dead father and the others. Her army moves through the country, slaughtering everything they see, pillaging, burning, plundering yet she sits on her high (moral) horse in all dialogues with CHARNAME.
I don't get this part of the story? I don't get how you can write an antagonist's purpose and reason to be this.. oxymoronic? I mean, kill thousands of innocents to save a few innocents? Sure, Hephernaan is there to fool her into this like a Grima Wormtongue, but still.. when I get the story told to me in the game it makes absolutely zero sense. It doesn't feel plausible or believable to me. Noone would act that stupid yet still sit on their moral throne looking down on others. I'm struggling to find the correct way in english to describe to you now what I mean by this statememt.
Why does this bother me? Well, I could have accepted the fact that the antagonist is deluded, cheated by her advisor and that the crusade has expanded and spiraled out of control. But then when CHARNAME get to talk to her, the conversation options offer plenty of opportunities to kinda agree to her, to make our CHARNAME almost agree to her cause even if we do not agree to her actions. Again, unbelievable. To me, that is. I mean, the cause is absolutely ridiculous and their can be no justification of it whatsoever. I would much have preferred that they had just portrayed her as completely deranged and mad rather than almost fully in control and that any dialogue choices for the CHARNAME reflected that.
OK, so now I want you to help me understand
I have probably misunderstood or missed certain aspects of the story and need your help to understand it.
Thanks!
I waited a long time before I played SoD and I've waited an even longer time before writing here because I wanted you-know-what to die out first. I would like to discuss the main story and keeping the focus purely on that. There are a plethora of things I truly enjoyed with SoD, the areas being the most beautyfull ever in an IE game for example, but there was certain aspects of the main story I never could understand.
I don't read in-game books, that's just not the person I am. I read books IRL but when I play a game, I want the story to be more straight forward and spoonfed to me. With this said, there might be books in the game that shines some light in the story I haven't read, so have that in mind.
Obviously there will be spoilers in this thread. If you haven't played the game yet you should exit this thread now since I hope anyone who replies will write out parts of it in detail.
OK, so my crude summarization of the main story and the antagonist's purpose is this: Argent amasses an army to go to Dragonspear castle to free the souls of her dead father and the others. Her army moves through the country, slaughtering everything they see, pillaging, burning, plundering yet she sits on her high (moral) horse in all dialogues with CHARNAME.
I don't get this part of the story? I don't get how you can write an antagonist's purpose and reason to be this.. oxymoronic? I mean, kill thousands of innocents to save a few innocents? Sure, Hephernaan is there to fool her into this like a Grima Wormtongue, but still.. when I get the story told to me in the game it makes absolutely zero sense. It doesn't feel plausible or believable to me. Noone would act that stupid yet still sit on their moral throne looking down on others. I'm struggling to find the correct way in english to describe to you now what I mean by this statememt.
Why does this bother me? Well, I could have accepted the fact that the antagonist is deluded, cheated by her advisor and that the crusade has expanded and spiraled out of control. But then when CHARNAME get to talk to her, the conversation options offer plenty of opportunities to kinda agree to her, to make our CHARNAME almost agree to her cause even if we do not agree to her actions. Again, unbelievable. To me, that is. I mean, the cause is absolutely ridiculous and their can be no justification of it whatsoever. I would much have preferred that they had just portrayed her as completely deranged and mad rather than almost fully in control and that any dialogue choices for the CHARNAME reflected that.
OK, so now I want you to help me understand
I have probably misunderstood or missed certain aspects of the story and need your help to understand it. Thanks!
7
Comments
Her stated goal, is to rescue those dragged into hell during the Dragonspear Wars. Note that these people are not simply dead, but instead they ended up in hell. You could reasonably argue that this fate is infinitely worse than death, and that therefore the death of a thousand good men (who will then end up in one of the good afterlifes) is a very reasonable price to pay for saving a handful otherwise trapped in hell, forever. Especially if you are talking about friends or family.
Now her real motivations, she wants to rescue only her uncle (not her father), who bargained his freedom for hers in the past, when she herself wound up trapped in hell due to mistakes in her youth. Either she does not believe that the innocents from the Dragonspear Wars can be saved or it is just not her primary concern. Still, as above you can make the argument that saving the eternal soul of one person is worth buying with the deaths of many good people [as long as their souls remain intact].
However, I do not think being one-dimensional is bad. I found Irenicus one-dimensional as well. The one-dimension just has to be well portrayed.
I mean, I genuinely care about children, but if my child was sick and I just needed some small blood sample from a specific other child (so no permanent harm) and the other child's parents are not willing, I would not have qualms to take the blood sample myself by force.
You can make the argument that eternal damnation of the soul is on a whole different scale than a simple death with a normal afterlife.
It is similar to how I get Kaelyn in MotB. The Wall of the Faithless is just evil so large and everlasting that almost every sacrifice is worthwhile to take it down.
A lot of deal is made of the effect the divine blood has on a person. In-universe, its assumed that Bhaal's blood is the reason for Sarevoks bloodthirst. Caelar is the counter argument to this. She carries the blood of a good deity in her, yet she caused more widespread death and destruction than Sarevok. SOme things definitely could have been explained better (or at all unless I'm missing something) but the theme still comes through, and its pretty great.
And it needs far better writing/explaination for players who mainly come from cultures that don't have any real belief in a "normal afterlife". You can indeed make that argument, but then make it.
That's where IMO, the writing fails. The idea that she would have support and respect from people when they have been killed and their homes burnt to the ground without anything that makes that believable.
They wouldn't be calling her the "Shining Lady" (they would have had many choice names for her but not that).
As charname, the only thing I want to say to her is "eff off you effing b****", the writing seems to imply that there would be some ambiguity about what I think of her. And that's annoying, no choice to abandon her and her stupid followers in hell to their own self made fate and instead concentrating on closing the portal with them inside, a la Demagorgan.
I don't want to say it's poor writing etc etc.. I just feel that as if one person wrote the main story and it's main plot points, but someone else entirely wrote the dialogues and the different characters. They are not aligned IMHO.
Until of course the direction of travel needs to ignore it. Then we get Charname accused of murder and condemned in spite of having saved thousands, not once but twice.
As you said,
"Inconsistency, thy name is Dragonspear"
@UnderstandMouseMagic I always felt that it came back to the issue of blood. There is a lot of in-universe speculation about whether Caelar *really* is a villain. After all she has divine blood, she is an Argent, she is a paladin; shouldn't she be striving for good?
Conversely we have charname, who (in the eyes of the people) is tainted by the blood of an evil god. Its clear double standard based solely on the characters origins, and not on their actions.
The trial is bogus because the people look at your ancestry and assume guilt, whereas people flock to Caelar because of her ancestry/family name/class and struggle to resolve that with their pre-concieved notions.
Still , i think the game story is more than good (imho), should have been bigger and from a different Bhaalspawn PoV imho.
From the other games(mostly rpgs) i see in the past several years , SoD is a blessing compared to them.
Something (other than loud, uninspiring speeches to the masses) which illustrated her charisma/attraction to people.
As it was, I found myself sitting there thinking, "what's this woman on about, she sounds deranged", and "how soon do I get to kill her?"
As far as I'm aware as long as her people were religiously devoted, I don't think they would end up in the Hells if they died there.
Of course a rampaging army will plunder and forage for food, how else would they survive when they don't have a city or state backing them? That's obvious and it's portrayed in the game good enough, like with the running refugees and the burned down inn etc.
But what is not at all portrayed in-game is, just like you @ThacoBell and you @UnderstandMouseMagic say, why do everyone follow her and why the hell should CHARNAME think anything other than complete and utter loathing about her and her followers? I mean for god's sake, it's even considered the good option NOT to poison their food stores, right? As if the poor crusaders are somehow not evil bastards deserving death, just like any drow are to Keldorn. It's just weird.. and feel inconsistent.
There's so many things about this game I loved, but on my last rushed playthrough I came to realize I fast-click through all interactions on the main story since it doesn't really add much..
Except the event on the boerskyr bridge, I really like that!
Anyways, I think I've said what I wanted now. I hope more people join in and give me their views on this specific topic. I've read many reviews by players here but not to many of them adress this specifically.
Cheers mates!
But for some reason the writers decided to have a "crusade" with an arguably reasonable/good cause be portrayed or act like an invading army...........but only sometimes.
Caelar Argent has no reason to behave like ISIS because she is not seeking to take over territory or convert people. She wants followers and forcing an unwilling amount of people to fight for a cause is a sure fire way to end up in a mess. Resources would have to be diverted to simply keep those unwilling under control.
It might work if you occupied the territory?
Took over the towns/resources, stationed troops to keep control and established the position that you/family starve unless you fight?
But that's not portrayed.
And when you go to one camp, (and it's a camp, not an occupied town with a subjugated population slaving to keep the troops supplied) the guards are quite civil, tell you to undertake a quest to prove your dedication to the crusade, no aggro, no "convert or die".
Also, if you take Edwin, he tells you that four red wizards join for the money offered. Two convert to the cause, one refuses and is killed, he pretends and bows down and makes his escape when he can (gotta love Edwin).
Also there are pamphlets offering good money to anybody who joins.
How does that work alonside the idea that you are enslaving people to fight for the crusade?
And if you are not enslaving them, why are you destroying resource creating societies on the way through?
None of it makes any sense.
But then why destroy people's homes/livelihoods ect.?
My point is the lack of coherence about actually what this "crusade" is doing. Yes there would be refugees pouring into BG if all food/crops/livestock had been taken by the crusade forces.
But then why the destruction?
Why the killing that's mentioned?
Why is the first building you see outside BG a burnt out inn?
Why are the bridges blocked?
They want followers yes?
So way to go to persuade people you are on the side of the righteous, Caelar Argent really needs to get her PR campaign sorted out.
Maybe I've missed something.
What's the opposing force the "crusade" has had to fight against to continue?
It's a "crusade" to rescue damned souls, people rally to the cause. Some would join to wash away past sins, some would join for the money, some would join because they believed in the cause.
So it would pass through and that would be it surely?
The goal is Dragonspear, not BG, not conquering the Sword Coast.
Even the baddie is not interested in that at this point in time.
Again, this might be explained somewhere deep in the lore, in books, etc but I never understood it at least.
"They're not really waging war so much as seizing resources, which is funneling refugees in to cities and messing up commerce since farmers are having all their crops and livestock seized, which means they're not going to make it to market at the city later, causing a famine and increasing crime as the starving refugees start rioting. It destabilizes both the rural and urban areas, which is why the local governments with an army decide to put a stop to all that. "
I get that.
But why blow up bridges?
Why burn buildings and kill people?
(and it does say it is the crusaders doing this)
Why kill volunteers/mercenaries when they offer their services but won't join in the religious stuff after you have advertised for them?
You hear soldiers(?) in BG talking about the money being offered if they serve, you find the pamphlets.
What's portrayed is an invading army whose aim is conquest/occupation
What the story says is that this is a crusade, and in fact a crusade that has some support and a clear objective.
And then it shows CA writing letters of condolance?
This is what it says on the pamphlet.
"Earn gold with your blade. Every coin you earn is food in the mouth of your family. Every enemy you slay secures your rank in the crusade.
Caelar's crusade marches in the north, Shall you join them?
Arm yourself and earn your first tendays pay while supporting the cause of right.
See a recruitment officer and start earning coin today"
Snappy huh?
I think @Vithar said it best,
"I think , the writers should 1st learn what the word ''Crusade'' means , then use it."
And on Caelar herself, to those who take issue with Caelar writing letters to the families of fallen crusaders when she doesn't care about them, I pose this question: Who says she doesn't care?
Yes, her true goal was to free her uncle, and sacrificing so many lives to achieve this may seem callous and contradictory to the side of her we see in that scene. But humans are flawed beings. We hold divergent beliefs and do highly contradictory things on a regular basis. Hephernan even says something to the effect of "You're wasting time sending letters to your followers' families? You need to focus", to which Caelar resists, responding with "We've been over this..." This implies that she's done this letter writing thing before and continues to do so, despite the disapproval of a prominent member of her inner circle. Now, you could take this as her just being particularly conniving and trying to keep up appearances, but given the shock you see in her when she is betrayed and the fact that her primary motivation is to save her uncle, someone she could have just as easily left in Hell, I doubt this is the case. More likely than not, she means what she says when she's writing those letters. She regrets that crusaders are losing their lives. The exact source of that regret, is hard to pinpoint. It could be that she knows they are dying for a false cause and the letters are a way of assuaging her guilt (after all, guilt is what drives her to try and save her uncle, so she's clearly capable of feeling it). We should also acknowledge the possibility that she may have actually tricked herself into believing that she COULD save the Dragonspear dead and that she not only feels regret for crusader deaths, but also believes they died for a good cause. Think about it: Caelar made a huge mistake as a child; a mistake that resulted in the damnation of a loved one. She was then cast out from her Paladin order and left to wander the world with the immense guilt she felt at the suffering she knows is being inflicted upon her Uncle; Suffering she could do nothing to alleviate. Then along comes this priest who says that not only is there a way to save her uncle, but that there is also a way for her to save other souls trapped in hell at the same time. Hephernan not only gave Caelar a means to right past wrongs, but also gave her a way to feel justified in doing so. This of course goes against the laws we know rule the Forgotten Realms, and Belhifet even states that Caelar knew that deep down. But Caelar's greatest sin is Pride. It was her pride that got her into the mess with Belhifet to begin with and it was pride in conjunction with her desperation that lead her to buy into the nonsense narrative Hephernan was spinning. After all, if there was anyone who could defy the laws of the universe, Caelar (with her Aasimar blood and Argent lineage) was that person... Or so she believed. Does this make her gullible and naive? Certainly. But I don't think her actions make her this cold, utterly selfish individual with no regard for the lives lost in her crusade; just a highly flawed individual whose intense desire to free her uncle lead her to do some very questionable things.
EDIT: Well, the bridges are blown up with the expressed intent of slowing the Flaming Fist down. They're trying to keep an opposing force from stopping their plans. There is nothing morally reprehensible or even illogical about that.
As for the burning buildings and killing people, again, ALL armies have that problem ALL the time. It doesn't matter how holy or righteous a force tries to portray itself, it will always have elements that will partake in such acts, especially when they aren't picky about who they let in.
In regard to the comment about killing volunteers/mercenaries, I honestly have no idea where you're getting that. I've played SoD a few times now, fairly thoroughly each time, and I don't remember seeing any evidence of that in game. In fact, I've seen evidence to support opposing claims. Many Crusaders who are following Caelar out of admiration and belief in her cause are actually upset that Caelar is so willing to take in people who are clearly there more for the money and power than anything else. She's not killing people who refuse to revere her as a savior or follow her religious beliefs, at least not as far as I've seen...
"I think , the writers should 1st learn what the word ''Crusade'' means , then use it."
Merriam-Webster's definition of crusade (the only one that isn't directly associated with the Christian Crusades, which obviously has no importance in the Forgotten Realms) is as follows:
a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm; ex: a crusade against drunk driving
Nothing about that definition strikes me as contradictory to what we see in game. It's a crusade to save the Dragonspear dead. It's a crusade waged under false pretenses, but that isn't important. All that matters is that the followers believe in it fervently.
Good post, good explaination.
Though I think you are being a little bit too forgiving of CA. If she's actually killing those who come for the money advertised, in cold blood, she's a monster, a tyrant.
Let alone allowing unconnected innocents to be trampled as an aside because she has no control of the troops she has gathered.
There's "highly flawed" and then there's "murderous psychopath".
I would have liked to see her face that truth rather than become "the victim" .